>The USA is currently obsessed with race, and this influences all discussions.
The United States has always been obsessed with race. The south had completely different schools based on a child's skin color. What makes you think this is new?
The United States has always been obsessed with race. The south had completely different schools based on a child's skin color. What makes you think this is new?
That said, the relative importance of the issue and satisfaction obviously shifts over time. Gallop polling shows that that by many metrics, perceptions of racial Injustice are at a multi-decade high. It is interesting that far fewer people feel that black people are treated fairly than in the late 90's. It would be interesting to see data going back even further.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/352544/larger-majority-says-rac...
>. It is interesting that far fewer people feel that black people are treated fairly than in the late 90's. It would be interesting to see data going back even further.
It seems intuitive to me. If you have a problem and then activists put in a ton of time to make that problem more visible, its going to change people's perceptions of social issues. For example, if you asked people in 1990 and 2020 if the Catholic church adequately protects children from sexual predators, you're probably gonna get a pretty drastic difference in responses.
I agree that if activist put a lot of emphasis on this and make it more visible that this feeling will be stronger. That doesn't negate the point above, it supports it.
Sure, people can argue over how productive the additional attention is for actually resolving issues, but that's not what I'm trying to do. I merely staying that attention is very high right now
A high point compared to what? The 90s? You have some recency bias in your understanding of this topic.
> agree that if activist put a lot of emphasis on this and make it more visible that this feeling will be stronger. That doesn't negate the point above, it supports it.
You didn't make a point, you said something was 'interesting' which I commented on because its really not, it just makes sense.
>Sure, people can argue over how productive the additional attention is for actually resolving issues, but that's not what I'm trying to do. I merely staying that attention is very high right now
I think you're mostly trying to backtrack a hot take
People are more aware than in the 90's. You don't find that interesting but I do. Cool?
My point was that the US cares about race a lot right now. Generally and relatively. Do you disagree?
If you have a central point you are trying to convey, stop beating around the bush and say it.
Regarding the election of the president, I assume you're talking about the 3/5 compromise. I think this had the opposite impact of what you're claiming.
It gave white male voters in the south less power. Representation based on total human population would have given them more.
If you were voting white male in the North, your representation was based on the total population of your state, including those that cant vote, i.e. women and children.
In the south, your total population for the purposes of proportional representation was reduced lower than the total human population of your state
If the president was elected strictly based on votes cast, the North would have dominated every election.
Not only did the South have completely disenfranchised slaves who nevertheless added to their masters electoral votes, but they also had much more limited franchise even for white males.
The constitution was set up to let the South prevent the vast majority of their people from voting without giving up much political power as a result.
Nobody supported the vast majority of people voting. The Electoral College was never based on voter numbers.